@Lou

Quote:

In this instance, no aliens were witnessed as no craft landed but a 1 to 2 mile wide craft was observed in the sky along with a smaller one

Too bad the photography taken by the alien supports doesn't support this conculsion.

Quote:

In many other documented cases aliens were observed.

In many documented cases gods were observed. Just keep living you life in denial.

Too bad you got your explaination switched around about trees that science observes the falling behavior. Your thoughts of alien foresters seriously lacks merit, because it lacks evidence.

As for Zndarsiac - he has 1 postulate not a truth yet. But, perhaps with evidence it'll get there. You're simply living in that leap of faith because you can't evidence. Though as I, and others, have asked a hundred times we're open for evidence once you do have something.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: In this instance, no aliens were witnessed as no craft landed but a 1 to 2 mile wide craft was observed in the sky along with a smaller one Too bad the photography taken by the alien supports doesn't support this conculsion. Quote: In many other documented cases aliens were observed. In many documented cases gods were observed. Just keep living you life in denial. Too bad you got your explaination switched around about trees that science observes the falling behavior. Your thoughts of alien foresters seriously lacks merit, because it lacks evidence. As for Zndarsiac - he has 1 postulate not a truth yet. But, perhaps with evidence it'll get there. You're simply living in that leap of faith because you can't evidence. Though as I, and others, have asked a hundred times we're open for evidence once you do have something.

To paraphrase Dr. Stanton Friedman:

The basic rules for the lack of attention to the relevant data by well educated, but ignorant-about-UFOs-professionals, especially SS, seem to be:

1. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
2. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them.
3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier.
4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway.

Safe to say this is your mantra.

You have done ZERO research. You accept ZERO facts. You consistenly attack me. You proclaim no evidence exists.

As for Zndarsiac, he is fully supported by math.
I also specified where you can see the math that you magically missed while skimming Brandenburg's book...which did not even take the linking of quantum mechanics and relativity into account. This link merely solidifies everything.

@Lou

Quote:

The basic rules for the lack of attention to the relevant data by well educated, but ignorant-about-UFOs-professionals, especially SS, seem to be: 1. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them. 3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier. 4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway.

Besides the Nazis I have no clue what the SS is.

1) Facts - At least in my requests this if a false assertion in your argument. The Facts presentable from Phoenix is some pictures of lights. Nothing more. Though again I'm open to more. Eyewitness testamony is not a fact but a postulate needing to be factually supported.

2) It's the job of the people who make the claim of Fact to provide the evidence. If it's a UFO then support it. Again testamony is not support but assertion.

3) I've attacked no one.

4) Well, let's see isn't finding eyewitness 2 which testfies that the lights were airplanes not an investigation? Afterall it wasn't the UFO Supporters that brought this out but the, shock, investigators.

Quote:

You consistenly attack me.

Please find something where I attack you and not the ideas. For example check out 1. It doesn't say you are stupid. It says your argument is at fault. Your argument is not you!

Quote:

As for Zndarsiac, he is fully supported by math

The math of ether worked very well on paper. Science found out through evidence that the substance doesn't exist.

Again your ideas are postulates that your arguments falsely inflate to conclusions.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The basic rules for the lack of attention to the relevant data by well educated, but ignorant-about-UFOs-professionals, especially SS, seem to be: 1. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them. 3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier. 4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway. Besides the Nazis I have no clue what the SS is. 1) Facts - At least in my requests this if a false assertion in your argument. The Facts presentable from Phoenix is some pictures of lights. Nothing more. Though again I'm open to more. Eyewitness testamony is not a fact but a postulate needing to be factually supported.

False. It is debunker's explanations that contradict observation. Just as, in science, theories are dismissed when they don't agree with observation. You spend pages arguing for science but ignore its basic principles when they work against you.

Quote:

2) It's the job of the people who make the claim of Fact to provide the evidence. If it's a UFO then support it. Again testamony is not support but assertion.

If something is not observed then it didn't happen. Contrary, if it is observed then it exists and happened. Debunkers like you preach that YOU didn't observe it hence YOU proclaim it didn't happen or doesn't exist. YOU are not anyone of weight and merit to everyone else.

Quote:

3) I've attacked no one.

Feel free to re-read this thread where you equate everyone's observations to illusion, delusion, accusations of intentional deceipt etc. Despite millions of people reporting the same types of things and details. That is an attack as you automatically dimiss everyone (that is not BrianK) as credible.

Quote:

4) Well, let's see isn't finding eyewitness 2 which testfies that the lights were airplanes not an investigation? Afterall it wasn't the UFO Supporters that brought this out but the, shock, investigators.

Investigators or debunkers? If 10,000 people say 1 thing and 1 person says another, BrianK believes the 1 because that 1 fits in his box. Technically, a vehicle flying in the air is a plane...so in theory the debunker is not lying. However, as reported by people who live near airports, this was moving too slow to be a traditional "plane" and it did block out the stars behind it across its (1 mile+ wide) triangular shape. The lights also did not match anything people whom have lived near the airport all their lives have ever seen before. So the debunker/BrianK is content with calling it a plane, everyone else is obviously delusional and ignorant because clearly someone who wasn't there knows better. Let's also ignore the reports from the airport traffic control towers...because you know, that's what debunkers do, ignore facts and all...see #1.

Quote:

Quote: You consistenly attack me. Please find something where I attack you and not the ideas. For example check out 1. It doesn't say you are stupid. It says your argument is at fault. Your argument is not you!

You twist my argument into fantasy to hide the facts that I have stated that you can't defend. Nimrod also does this.

Quote:

Quote: As for Zndarsiac, he is fully supported by math The math of ether worked very well on paper. Science found out through evidence that the substance doesn't exist. Again your ideas are postulates that your arguments falsely inflate to conclusions.

Again, you twist. No one mentioned ether. You can't argue the math, so you twist the argument.

You are a debunker. You are obvious.

@Lou

Quote:

False. It is debunker's explanations that contradict observation.

Again which observation are you talking about? We have two in the case of Phoenix Lights. One observation is Aliens. Another observation is airplanes and flares.

Quote:

You spend pages arguing for science but ignore its basic principles when they work against you.

It appears you made some sort of transition here? As the first part doesn't appear to suppor this last part.

Quote:

If something is not observed then it didn't happen. Contrary, if it is observed then it exists and happened

I think you have a disagreement on what an observation is versus a postulate. What was observed was lights. We have two postulates. One set of people is postulating aliens. Another set of people is postulating flares and airplanes. So, clearly the observed events, lights, did occur and is agreed to in either case.

Quote:

Debunkers like you preach that YOU didn't observe it hence YOU proclaim it didn't happen

Please provide evidence of me ever saying that. I have to disagree because I never stated that only I can be the one observing an event. Instead what I did say is the event happened as observed by many. And there's a disagreement on cause between groups of people, aliens vs man.

Quote:

Feel free to re-read this thread where you equate everyone's observations to illusion, delusion, accusations of intentional deceipt etc.

Just a few posts ago you told us Billions were deluded in their observations of a god. What I have said repeatedly is observations are postulates not conclusions. We reach a conclusion when we have external evidence which supports, or not, the observer.

Quote:

You twist my argument into fantasy to hide the facts that I have stated that you can't defend. Nimrod also does this

This statement was supposed to be support, or illustration of your accusation of how I, as you said, 'consistenly attack me'. Twisting arguments clearly not a personal attack. Again you are not your arguments.

Quote:

You can't argue the math, so you twist the argument

My understanding is we're talking about a workable model of the universe. We can create some very complex and creative mathematical models which have little to no representational values with reality.

For example, I can design a whole uni-dimensional universe. The math is excellent! The mapping of a uni-dimensional universe to the one I live in is flawed to the extent I can fairly say that the sound mathematical model is unrepresentative of my reality. ... This isn't a twisting. It's an understanding that we're not looking for a mathematical ideal but the most true mathematical system of reality.

As such we can only figure that out by making postulates out of Zndarisac's system and seeing his equations aren't just pretty but useful. The usefulness of Zndarisac is, to date, unproven. But, again I'm open to seeing it make those sorts of advances. ... Which is why you've been asked things such as when our Zero-Point Energy based on Zndarisac vehicles might be for sale. When is that mathematical form going to be carried into reality?

@Lou

Quote:

You can't argue the math, so you twist the argument.

What Math?

I have asked on several occasions for a mathematical basis for your fantasy, and you have yet to provide any The equation that you quoted for maglev works on maglev having two strong magnetic fields in close proximity but not with rocks thousands of miles apart. You have even boasted that you have no intention of providing any evidence for the CRAP that you keep spouting.
Quote:

1. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them. 3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier. 4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway.

This perfectly sums up your whole attitude to this entire thread, and your inane religious dogma.

Quote:

As for Zndarsiac, he is fully supported by math.

Again, what mathematics. The mathematics that Plancks constant = Plancks constant. Big deal. If even I can see through this second rate numerical sleight of hand, think of how ridiculous it must look to a real physicist.
Where is the mathematics that can predict the movement of bodies travelling around in the solar system using EM measurements. You still have absolutely no explanation for why Mars obits the Sun despite having no geomagnet. If the ZPF that you have produced like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat had the power to do the job, it would also stop the Earth in its tracks. Returning to Earth, can you explain why a 1kg bar of iron weighs 1kg at the poles and at the equator when the magnetic field density alters by such large proportions. Then explain why the same applies to a lead bar despite the fact that lead is diamagnetic, not ferromagnetic. Or have the voices from Zeta Reticuli not told you that yet.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

ZOMG! The government lied again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfxh8oXa64M

I mean like, who would have thunk it?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: False. It is debunker's explanations that contradict observation. Again which observation are you talking about? We have two in the case of Phoenix Lights. One observation is Aliens. Another observation is airplanes and flares. Quote: You spend pages arguing for science but ignore its basic principles when they work against you. It appears you made some sort of transition here? As the first part doesn't appear to suppor this last part. Quote: If something is not observed then it didn't happen. Contrary, if it is observed then it exists and happened I think you have a disagreement on what an observation is versus a postulate. What was observed was lights. We have two postulates. One set of people is postulating aliens. Another set of people is postulating flares and airplanes. So, clearly the observed events, lights, did occur and is agreed to in either case. Quote: Debunkers like you preach that YOU didn't observe it hence YOU proclaim it didn't happen Please provide evidence of me ever saying that. I have to disagree because I never stated that only I can be the one observing an event. Instead what I did say is the event happened as observed by many. And there's a disagreement on cause between groups of people, aliens vs man.

I link you a video with atleast a dozen eyewitnesses that described anything but a plane, you've presented nothing.

Quote:

Quote: Feel free to re-read this thread where you equate everyone's observations to illusion, delusion, accusations of intentional deceipt etc. Just a few posts ago you told us Billions were deluded in their observations of a god. What I have said repeatedly is observations are postulates not conclusions. We reach a conclusion when we have external evidence which supports, or not, the observer.

When your "claimed evidence" doesn't support observation, flush it in the toilet.
You've shown nothing.

Quote:

Quote: You twist my argument into fantasy to hide the facts that I have stated that you can't defend. Nimrod also does this This statement was supposed to be support, or illustration of your accusation of how I, as you said, 'consistenly attack me'. Twisting arguments clearly not a personal attack. Again you are not your arguments.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Quote:

Quote: You can't argue the math, so you twist the argument My understanding is we're talking about a workable model of the universe. We can create some very complex and creative mathematical models which have little to no representational values with reality. For example, I can design a whole uni-dimensional universe. The math is excellent! The mapping of a uni-dimensional universe to the one I live in is flawed to the extent I can fairly say that the sound mathematical model is unrepresentative of my reality. ... This isn't a twisting. It's an understanding that we're not looking for a mathematical ideal but the most true mathematical system of reality. As such we can only figure that out by making postulates out of Zndarisac's system and seeing his equations aren't just pretty but useful. The usefulness of Zndarisac is, to date, unproven. But, again I'm open to seeing it make those sorts of advances. ... Which is why you've been asked things such as when our Zero-Point Energy based on Zndarisac vehicles might be for sale. When is that mathematical form going to be carried into reality?

Blah blah blah! What are you talking about here? Do you have anything to challenge the math in Frank Z's paper or not? We don't need this extra drama that you use to skirt the issue.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You can't argue the math, so you twist the argument. What Math?

Are you senile or something? Are we not talking about a published paper here?

Quote:

I have asked on several occasions for a mathematical basis for your fantasy, and you have yet to provide any The equation that you quoted for maglev works on maglev having two strong magnetic fields in close proximity but not with rocks thousands of miles apart. You have even boasted that you have no intention of providing any evidence for the CRAP that you keep spouting.

First of all, the only one spouting crap is you. I SPECIFIED a page in a book where a formula is given that defines PRECISELY big G. You do know what 'big G' is right? It's the basis of your mythical gravity formula. You can't even follow a conversation evidenced by your first comment in this post I'm replying to, so just stop typing crap, because that's all I see you doing.

Quote:

Quote: 1. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them. 3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier. 4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway. This perfectly sums up your whole attitude to this entire thread, and your inane religious dogma.

Actually, you and BrianK look like the Spanish Inquisition...the earth is flat, right?

Quote:

Quote: As for Zndarsiac, he is fully supported by math. Again, what mathematics. The mathematics that Plancks constant = Plancks constant. Big deal. If even I can see through this second rate numerical sleight of hand, think of how ridiculous it must look to a real physicist. Where is the mathematics that can predict the movement of bodies travelling around in the solar system using EM measurements. You still have absolutely no explanation for why Mars obits the Sun despite having no geomagnet. If the ZPF that you have produced like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat had the power to do the job, it would also stop the Earth in its tracks. Returning to Earth, can you explain why a 1kg bar of iron weighs 1kg at the poles and at the equator when the magnetic field density alters by such large proportions. Then explain why the same applies to a lead bar despite the fact that lead is diamagnetic, not ferromagnetic. Or have the voices from Zeta Reticuli not told you that yet.

You are ignorant. Again, I pointed you to a formula but clearly reading comprehension wasn't your best subject.
Also, you are denying ZPF exists, which again exposes your limited comrehension or exposes you as nothing but a crap-talker...or both.

@Lou

Quote:

I link you a video with atleast a dozen eyewitnesses that described anything but a plane, you've presented nothing.

People presenting postulates not evidence. If you want a video here's one you might like. Video from UFO Supporters was analyzed for accuracy of statements and the lights go behind, not in front, of the mountain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD6MYZcucQA Doesn't show what they are though it does demonstrate people inaccurate recall of the event. You do realize there was extensive investigation of this event. And the conculsions were flares not LGM.

Quote:

When your "claimed evidence" doesn't support observation, flush it in the toilet

You seem to be motionally tied to this event as you emotionally imbibe your posts. The evidence and reviews indeed support the observers that claim man-made causes.

Quote:

Stop trying to change the subject.

You accused me of attacking you. Your response provided a detail, not on how I attack you, but on how you view I twist your words. There was no subject change there by me. I continued to focus on your false charge which you subsequently failed to support.

Quote:

Do you have anything to challenge the math in Frank Z's paper or not? We don't need this extra drama that you use to skirt the issue.

Lou has taken care to explain how FrankieBoy's paper was mathematically valid. And if we're trying to understand reality then the meat is the predictive validity of the formula's. Which again doesn't exist at thist time.

If you want to call drama the comparison of Frank's 'excellent math' to reality then so be it. Personally, no matter how excellent the math if it's a worse predictor of real events then there's a problem. My 'drama', as you call it, is comparison of theory to reality.

Oh and on your 'gov lies post'. First, I don't think anyone here claimed the gov was fool proof. Your wording created a strawman. But look deeper at what happened with E in that 1 video. It was scientific evidence from Germany and the UK that offset the scientific evidence from the USA. Due to identification of poor science the USA scientist redacted their papers. So, really what happened is what we've been asking of you. Provide us the better set of evidence (Germany/UK) to offset the poor evidence (USA) and what happens is science progresses, learns, and improves. And one last point your posts a few tens of 20 pages ago or you claimed science never rejects old with new and with E it appears exactly that is what happened.

And as a humorous side note - if you really believe the Gov lies about everything probably explains that lead paint chip diet of yours.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I link you a video with atleast a dozen eyewitnesses that described anything but a plane, you've presented nothing. People presenting postulates not evidence. If you want a video here's one you might like. Video from UFO Supporters was analyzed for accuracy of statements and the lights go behind, not in front, of the mountain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD6MYZcucQA Doesn't show what they are though it does demonstrate people inaccurate recall of the event. You do realize there was extensive investigation of this event. And the conculsions were flares not LGM.

The video you linked details the pathetic levels you will go to in order to debunk...
Let me RELINK the video with DIRECT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEECViEp18

Do you not see the discrepencies here? I mean you don't find it odd that the Maryland Air National Guard is flying over Arizona? You don't find it odd that Luke Airforce Base has nothing to say that night?

Pathetic.

Quote:

Quote: When your "claimed evidence" doesn't support observation, flush it in the toilet You seem to be motionally tied to this event as you emotionally imbibe your posts. The evidence and reviews indeed support the observers that claim man-made causes.

I am frustrated with obvious BS debunking. Ignore facts as long and your explanation is sufficiently mundane.

Quote:

Quote: Stop trying to change the subject. You accused me of attacking you. Your response provided a detail, not on how I attack you, but on how you view I twist your words. There was no subject change there by me. I continued to focus on your false charge which you subsequently failed to support.

#3

Quote:

Quote: Do you have anything to challenge the math in Frank Z's paper or not? We don't need this extra drama that you use to skirt the issue. Lou has taken care to explain how FrankieBoy's paper was mathematically valid. And if we're trying to understand reality then the meat is the predictive validity of the formula's. Which again doesn't exist at thist time. If you want to call drama the comparison of Frank's 'excellent math' to reality then so be it. Personally, no matter how excellent the math if it's a worse predictor of real events then there's a problem. My 'drama', as you call it, is comparison of theory to reality.

The reality is that his math puts a real formula to quantum mechanics. You can't prove it wrong. Just admit it and move on.

Quote:

Oh and on your 'gov lies post'. First, I don't think anyone here claimed the gov was fool proof. Your wording created a strawman. But look deeper at what happened with E in that 1 video. It was scientific evidence from Germany and the UK that offset the scientific evidence from the USA. Due to identification of poor science the USA scientist redacted their papers. So, really what happened is what we've been asking of you. Provide us the better set of evidence (Germany/UK) to offset the poor evidence (USA) and what happens is science progresses, learns, and improves. And one last point your posts a few tens of 20 pages ago or you claimed science never rejects old with new and with E it appears exactly that is what happened.

If the 'new' science was accepted, then E would be taken off the controlled substances list.

Quote:

And as a humorous side note - if you really believe the Gov lies about everything probably explains that lead paint chip diet of yours.

I don't believe the government lies about everything, I believe you believe everything the government tells you because you are just that type of person. ...oh and you did just pull another #3...

Last edited by Lou on 11-Jan-2012 at 05:40 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Are you senile or something? Are we not talking about a published paper here?

No I am not senile. The paper under discussion is claimed to have been submitted for peer review. There is no evidence that it survived the process, and until he can show that the speed of the quantum transition (Vt) figure of 1.094 MHz m was actually measured, rather than reverse engineered from Plancks constant, his "mathematics" is not credible.

Quote:

Again, I pointed you to a formula but clearly reading comprehension wasn't your best subject.

You pointed me to a formula that was not relevant to the argument you were trying to make. I have already explained this to you but clearly reading comprehension wasn't your best subject, and you seem to have never even heard of mathematics.

Quote:

Also, you are denying ZPF exists

What I am denying is that any force, under any name, can be both overwhelmingly huge, and sub-microscopically tiny at the same time. If ZPF is big enough to keep Mars from wandering off in a straight line, then in an EM system it would stop the large geomagnet called the Earth in its tracks. Likewise if it is too small to stop the Earth in its orbit, it is too small to keep Mars from wandering off. You also ran away from answering the point about the weight of metal bars in parts of the world with widely differing magnetic field densities. In an EM system the weight would vary, in a Newton/Einstein system it would not.

Quote:

Let me RELINK the video with DIRECT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEECViEp18

Let me explain this in words of one syllable so that you can understand me
They. Saw. Lights. In. The. Sky.
Everything else is assumption. Some people assumed that the lights were aircraft of one sort or another. Others assumed that lights in the sky has to be Klingons... Or Zetans.

You keep ranting about BrianK and myself having closed minds, yet you are the one who states "I do not know what the answer is therefore it must be aliens". Normal people confronted with unknowns usually respond "I do not know what the answer is therefore I will find out." I actually do think that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life, I simply cannot accept that going to the trouble of crossing 40 light years of interstellar space in order to put messages into what can loosely be described as the "mind" of Nancy LIEder can be classed as evidence of intelligence.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-space-chief-says-failures-may-sabotage-144042995.html

the plot thickens...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Are you senile or something? Are we not talking about a published paper here? No I am not senile. The paper under discussion is claimed to have been submitted for peer review. There is no evidence that it survived the process, and until he can show that the speed of the quantum transition (Vt) figure of 1.094 MHz m was actually measured, rather than reverse engineered from Plancks constant, his "mathematics" is not credible.

It seems you missed how/where he measured that value...which is of course where your disbelief comes from...studying anti-gravity and cold-fusion...

Quote:

Quote: Again, I pointed you to a formula but clearly reading comprehension wasn't your best subject. You pointed me to a formula that was not relevant to the argument you were trying to make. I have already explained this to you but clearly reading comprehension wasn't your best subject, and you seem to have never even heard of mathematics.

Big G is defined as an electrostatic force between a hydrogen atom and ZPF. Hence, since all matter is made up of hydrogen (aka protons and electrons), and matter is defined as fluctuations from ZPF, then mass is just a multiple of hydrogen atoms and hence this formula works...

As I always said, gravity is an EM side effect.

Quote:

Quote: Also, you are denying ZPF exists What I am denying is that any force, under any name, can be both overwhelmingly huge, and sub-microscopically tiny at the same time. If ZPF is big enough to keep Mars from wandering off in a straight line, then in an EM system it would stop the large geomagnet called the Earth in its tracks. Likewise if it is too small to stop the Earth in its orbit, it is too small to keep Mars from wandering off. You also ran away from answering the point about the weight of metal bars in parts of the world with widely differing magnetic field densities. In an EM system the weight would vary, in a Newton/Einstein system it would not.

See above. Gravity is a side effect of matter against ZPF...and read the book.
The paper I linked several posts ago defines inertia in terms of EM against ZPF as well... /yawn

Quote:

Quote: Let me RELINK the video with DIRECT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEECViEp18 Let me explain this in words of one syllable so that you can understand me They. Saw. Lights. In. The. Sky. Everything else is assumption. Some people assumed that the lights were aircraft of one sort or another. Others assumed that lights in the sky has to be Klingons... Or Zetans. You keep ranting about BrianK and myself having closed minds, yet you are the one who states "I do not know what the answer is therefore it must be aliens". Normal people confronted with unknowns usually respond "I do not know what the answer is therefore I will find out." I actually do think that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life, I simply cannot accept that going to the trouble of crossing 40 light years of interstellar space in order to put messages into what can loosely be described as the "mind" of Nancy LIEder can be classed as evidence of intelligence.

When a V light pattern flys slowly over people's heads 1 mile across and no stars are seen within the triangular area making up the V other than it's bright 5 lights making it up, then show me a plane that is a triangle with a 1 mile span. When you can do that, then I'll believe its a plane. Also planes are required to have both white and red lights. Do also show me a plane having only amber lights.

Once again: observational facts contradict debunking claims. These people live near an airport, they could be considered experts at differentiating between plane and non-plane. The debunkers only fool people who like living in extremely small boxes...

PS,
EM EVERYWHERE!

Last edited by Lou on 11-Jan-2012 at 08:56 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

It seems you missed how/where he measured that value...which is of course where your disbelief comes from...studying anti-gravity and cold-fusion...

So he got these measurements from... Something that doesn't work, and... something else that doesn't work. Like I keep asking are these actual measurements, or the product of reverse engineering of Plancks constant There are NO working cold fusion units where these figures can be verified. There are NO working anti-gravity installations where these claims can be independently verified. As a result of there being no way to verify these claims there is no reason to think that they are anything other than pure, unadulterated, low grade, science fiction.

Quote:

Big G is defined as an electrostatic force between a hydrogen atom and ZPF

Citation please, or are you simply parroting the opinion of Znidarsic as fact like a good little acolyte should?

Quote:

matter is defined as fluctuations from ZPF

Re-Introducing Wave-particle duality as though it were something new, rather than something that was discussed by Aristotle and Democritus still doesn't mean that "it's all EM" The big joke here is that you then go on to quote Newtons equations for gravitational attraction of two masses to "prove" your EM universe.

Quote:

The paper I linked several posts ago defines inertia in terms of EM against ZPF as well... /yawn

I know. And if you insert ZPF values big enough to electro-magnetically influence a barren rock the size of Mars, the same ZPF figures would cause a huge geomagnet the size of the Earth to stop dead in its tracks. From this article it can be seen that ZPF is far from a proven idea, and there is still a lot of work to be done to refine the concepts. Specifically in relation to orders of magnitude

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

Let me RELINK the video with DIRECT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS:

The logical problem you have here is you can't use the source to prove itself correct. What happens is the Eyewitness story becomes the postulate that is accepted as a value to truth when collaborating evidence is availble.

So back to the video I linked. The video evidence provided was stated by various of the Eyewitnesses to be their recording of the event. It's a source of evidence other than the Eye Witness. As such it's one set of data we may use as evidence. Now the Eyewitnesses claimed time of day for the 2 events, lights in front of Mountains, and all the lights made a single UFO. In the video (again from UFO supporters) supports neither lights in front of Mountans, they are behind, nor a single flying object, nothing seen in the daytime video. .. If this is the evidence the UFO witnesses provide to collaborate their story, it fails at doing so.

Quote:

Do you not see the discrepencies here?

yeah I do. The UFO supporters version of the story and their claimed collaborative evidence don't match. Either the evidence provided by the UFO supporters is lying or the UFO supporters themselves are lying.

Quote:

I mean you don't find it odd that the Maryland Air National Guard is flying over Arizona? You don't find it odd that Luke Airforce Base has nothing to say that night?

Neither of us know every detail of a military operation. Though having in-laws in the National Guard I can tell you that they have had maneuvers outside of the State they are assigned to. 'Luke Airforce Base' has nothing? Lots to check there. Who was this 'Luke Airforce Base' - did they have knowledge, or should they, and did they have military clearance at the time? If you call a guy at the front gate he's unlikely to tell you anything.

Quote:

Ignore facts as long and your explanation is sufficiently mundane.

We dispute the facts. My fact is the lights existed. Your 'fact' is the lights were part of a UFO, which was driven by an unobserved alien. If no one sees it, it's not a fact, it's a hypothesis.

Quote:

The reality is that his math puts a real formula to quantum mechanics. You can't prove it wrong. Just admit it and move on.

You are spot on here! I clearly did not do any proof of his math. I accepted Frank's math as true as you presented. Bad form to trust you. And also I did what you asked and moved on. Assuming the math to be true I moved onto the next question - is there any proof of application to reality and it's accuracy? To date there isn't. (Or at least to date you haven't presented anything valid here.) If you want Math questions Lou is hitting that fairly good so. If you don't want to move on with me you can step back there.

Quote:

I believe you believe everything the government tells you because you are just that type of person.

You'd be wrong. I don't believe I ask for the evidences and always keep a skeptical eye out for more evidences and or better hypothesis. Always willing to change the conclusion when better evidences are available. Though you should know that we went through belief vs proof they are very different.

Quote:

...oh and you did just pull another #3...

I did denote it was humor and therefore meant only in jest. So no, not a serious #3.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jan-2012 at 01:21 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jan-2012 at 01:20 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-space-chief-says-failures-may-sabotage-144042995.html the plot thickens...

Again is this claim anything more than a paranoid guess? The Russians provided no evidence that the USA has a EMF transmitter big enough to accomplish the task, and no actual evidence that such a device was turned on and transmitting at the exact right time to accomplish this.

What we have again is a guess, a postulate. Claiming X to be true is not equivalent to proving X is true.

I'm all for investigating and if this is one avenue the Russians want to pursue then we'll be here waiting, as always, open to the new EVIDENCE to become available.

So, where is Niburu? Give me the coordinates please. I wan´t to see it first hand. We can see planets over 100 light years away but not Niburu which should be closer than Saturn if it is going to hit us before this year is over. So where is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

Nuclear powered cars...now we're talking!

@Lou

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon Nuclear powered cars...now we're talking!

Actually this is a steam powered car. The nuclear energy is used to heat water and turn it into steam which pushes a turbine.

Not sure if the public will enjoy driving around in a radioactive car. Every crash has a potential to becoming a nuclear waste and exposure issue. Other costs go up as we need every fire station in the land to be trained and prepared for an unpredictable location of a Nuclear Hazaradous Material clean up. Imagine the road costs to clean and rebuild a freeway because of a meltdown during rush hour? Ouch!

The design would likely work. It's akin to a nuclear sub design. Though if it works, is effiecent, or is cost effective we'll not know as a working prototype never existed.